November 18, 2011

"... is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school."

174 comments:

Hmmm. It's kinda calling it like it is. the TERM may offend people, but - -

You know, Tammy Bruce has been pointing it out for YEARS. Read her books. She says essentially, that acceptance and equality were not enough, that that was not the end game, and what has emerged is an in your face, shove it down your throat, malignant narcissistic activist "movement" that will not rest. It's not really about money, either, but about the power to make you do whatever the meme of the day is.

Check out the removal of this Ratner fellow as a producer for the Oscars. Someone asked him if he was in rehearsals (presumably for the Oscars in March) and he responded "Rehearsals are for fags". And that was that.

Good grief, he became a true believer and joined the Catholic church after cheating on two wives. He must be worried about the religious right rejecting him because of his history of being an adulterer. Yes , make those gay people look really scary. Pander much?

yes. gay people do not want to be discriminated against. this is america. minority groups impose their will on the rest of the nation all the time. get over it, nobody's getting really hurt. except for all of those insane people who have so much free time to go around and talk about how gay marriage is hurting their (apparently extremely fragile) marriage. actually, i think straight people ruin the institution of marriage very well on their own. gingrich knows all about that. he is the last person who should talk about sunday school values as though he holds better to them than others.

Fascism has support from all sides. There is a religious fascism as well. There are also far too many conservatives who support a police state, often using the "war on drugs" as an excuse.

This is all made possible by a largely bipartisan congress which says one thing and does another, all the time simply increasing federal mandates and making the law increasingly complicated and such that everyone is in violation of some law at some time.

I hope Ann doesn't think that Gingrich actually knows what is taught in all Sunday schools. The values Gingrich (the serial adulterer) is complaining about aren't the opposite of what was taught in my Sunday School. But then again I bet Gingrich doesn't believe the Episcopal and Presbyterian (PCUSA) are "christian" churches.

The point also is that the particular issue picked this time isn't really the point. Ordinary decent people trying to make a living are never in the right, and the Smug-ocracy are never in the wrong. When their wind blows, we're the grass that's supposed to bow (and get trodden into the mud or eaten). We're not allowed to change them; they're supposed to change us.

The only solace is that they do push around each other, because the most important value is being up-to-date on the Rightthink and Wrongthink du jour.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Let's try it another way. Create two standalone sentences, and reverse the order:

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of [religion]" - protection for the believers, and contra the Europe they fled.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;" - protection for agnostics, for atheists, and a prohibition on those who would impose a specific religion, also contra the Europe they fled.

Fascism? Read some history, people. Fascism has a specific catalog of means and ends. It devalues the term to use it loosely.

A more accurate statement would be "there are gay and secular interest groups in this country" but that is a commonplace. There are also christian interest groups and lima-bean interest groups and guns-rights interest groups.

The Tea Party is an interest group that wants to impose its will on the rest of us -- in the form of lower taxes and less intrusive government -- and by God I hope they manage to do it.

Christian in the sense that they believe in the divinity of Christ? You tell me, Freder. I find the further left a congregation is, the less it wants to think Jesus was anything more than a particularly charismatic magician.

Churches? No. There is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. No other was established by Christ. No other is true. If Gingrich is a Catholic, that's what's taught. Whether he believes it is another matter.

"He must be worried about the religious right rejecting him because of his history of being an adulterer."

Allie, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you've never met anyone who would call themselves "religious right" outside of the funhouse mirror in your head. All men are tempted to sin. Not all fall. So long as one truly repents of one's sins, God's mercy is infinite. So any "worries" Newt has are between him and his Creator.

But it is funny to see you attack him for a flaw which would mark him as a paragon of virtue were he a Democrat.

Good grief, he became a true believer and joined the Catholic church after cheating on two wives. He must be worried about the religious right rejecting him because of his history of being an adulterer. Yes , make those gay people look really scary. Pander much?

I remember this thing called the AIDS epidemic, Allie, which was caused by the behavior of gay men.

Nothing to be scared of there, right? Just 10s of millions of dead.

Feel free now to tell me that the AIDS epidemic was actually caused by President Reagan.

Demagogues, call out your dogs. I'll try not to reply to your eminently stupid attempts to deny the obvious.

To reply to Gingrich quote, I will merely point out that there is a Christian group that wants to impose its will on the rest of us. There is a Democratic Group -- or groups -- that wants to impose its will on the rest of us. There is a Republican Group -- or groups -- that wants to impose its will on the rest of us. The Government wants to impose its will on the rest of us.

Why should Gays and Secular be different in wanting to impose their will?

You're missing the point of the article. It was not about what Newt said and the veracity of what he said, but about who's turn in the barrel it is.

Perry gets in the race, starts doinf very well, stories about tuition for illegal immigrants. Cain takes the lead, stories about sexual escapades with white women. Newt starts moving up, a review of less than polite phrasings of some peoples sacred cows.

So who hasn't had a turn in the barrel? Who is angry sock monkey before angry sock monkey was cool? Who benefits from dredging this stuff up?

Most directly its "der Mittens". Obliquely, it's the angry sock monkey, because if given the choice of angry sock monkey, and angry sock monkey lite, the conservatives, and the Tea Party vote is going to be depressed.

Ultimately, its the liberal progressives and their agenda. The illusion of choice is propagated, and we slip further into Communism/Socialism/NWO. As long as the elites stay in charge.

No one can "take" your rights from you, they are God given. You have to give them away.

WTF is going on when 98% of the country is forced to deal with this crap?

Our basic survival needs have been so completely met that we need to invent threats and conflict in order to embrace all of the swirling drama that surrounds such in order to make the more primitive parts of our brains fire.

Who says belief in Christ's divinity is necessary to being a Christian? Being "Christian" merely means to be like Christ...to tend to the poor and hungry and oppressed and afflicted and "the least" among us.

"Feel free now to tell me that the AIDS epidemic was actually caused by President Reagan."

Yeah ain't that the truth.

I'm supposed to be horrified by some overweight blue-collar worker having a plate of bbq ribs for dinner after a long day of manual labor because we're going to eventually have to pay for his healthcare.

But a bunch of gay guys can't be bothered to practice safe sex in a bathhouse while they fuck each other in the ass and that's ok because it's all about freedom, liberty and some other bullshit.

Still going to have to pay for that healthcare but as long as it doesn't involve fat people it's ok.

Speaking about taking a stand, 391 years ago William Bradford at age 30 lead 100 younger than himself souls to the wilderness on Cape Cod in faith that they could live in religious freedom from government/Church tyranny.

Landing in November, half died from starvation before spring thaw and they planted a crop in faith, but by mid July the drought was killing it.

After a declared day of prayer and fasting, a light rain started and fell for two days saving the corn, much to the Indian's amazement since a summer rain was usually a windy thunder storm that would have beaten down the dying corn.

That harvest was very much deserving of thanks to God so they celebrated with three days of Indian/pilgrim games and a great feast.

Many descendants from that band of Christian Pilgrims went on to populate the Northeast across to Ohio, and a few ended up in the south, including myself.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you Pilgrims out there today going through life in religious freedom today.

No kidding Christopher in MA, but that doesn't change the fact that is exactly what they are. Are you trying to deny there is a segment of the conservative ideology that mixes religion with their politics? Who do you think Gingrich is directing this comment towards? Not someone like ScottM surely.

RC, there's only one thing required to be a Christian. Other religions and the non-religious "tend to the poor and hungry and oppressed and afflicted and "the least" among us" and that doesn't make them Christian in the least.

Your definition of what is required to be a Christian is seriously lacking.

Outside of the "gay" part of that comment, what he's saying is somewhat true. Recently the ACLU effectively got HHS to stop funding a Catholic charity that aided human trafficking victims. The ACLU went after this through an establishment clause argument (HHS subsequently did an end around about having to provide contraception). How is a Catholic program that receives government funding for a civil good a violation of the establishment clause? Was the money given to the church given to it instead of an equally worthy Jewish, Baptist, or Muslim charity? Or was it just a charity, acting in the same vein as secular charities (but much better apparently) that engaged in this specific action because of it's belief system, just like those other charities, only this belief system stems from an organized religion?

Here's the problem, people act on their beliefs, and secular humanists may be no less fervent in those beliefs than devout Catholics. Should the Catholic charity be punished because it is organized under a religious doctrine rather than and inchoate belief system? Pretty much, does giving money to a Catholic Charity or School show that the government is taking sides in religion, when all qualifying charities can receive the same funding whether they be Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Secular? Not if each provides a civil good, and that service meets the standards set by the government. But, what if the government changes it's standards so that a particular viewpoint is favored, namely abortion in this case? Isn't that prohibiting the free expression of a religion? The Church's organization wasn't saying that all other organizations should stop giving contraception to human trafficking victims, it just wasn't giving contraception to the victims it received in its program.

Similarly, under HHS guidelines practicing Catholic healthcare practitioners can not opt out of aiding in giving abortions and still receive Fed funding...isn't that an infringement of the establishment clause? Abortion is legal, but shouldn't they be able to opt out if it is in direct conflict with their beliefs?

I routinely enjoy getting into arguments with liberals I know about these sorts of things. And frankly liberalism isn't about ideology or politics. To me liberalism can be rendered down to an inescapable blind spot that somehow the liberal just cannot see around ... or see at all.

So we're discussing healthcare and costs and how personal bad habits should be regulated and taxed so that people won't engage in bad behavior.

When I pointed out that perhaps Congress should use it's new found powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate unprotected gay male sex to prevent such bad behavior from impacting the cost of healthcare "for the rest of us". She nearly freaked out.

Vastly amusing.

She objected because Congress doesn't have that power. But I pointed out that the basis of ObamaCare is that Congress does have the power since any and all activity at some point impacts and involves healthcare. And unprotected gay male sex can lead directly to HIV/AIDS.

She objected because sex is an private and intimate activity. And I retorted that what is more private and intimate than eating food? Just as some people enjoy sex in public many people prefer to eat in private. Being in public or private is not a requirement for such activity. The question then is devolves into; is such activity now subject to regulation by Congress?

Wow just checked the link. The first two items really are known, bold faced lies. Does that not bother anyone on the left anymore? Do leftists have any sort of human decency remaining or is it anything goes to get the evil republicans.

No, Allie. The point you thought you were making was that the "religious right" is so intolerant that unless divorced, adulterous Newt sucks up to them and plays the committed Christian (like the Syphilitic Hillbilly carrying his post-Monica bible), they - finding out about his sleazy past - won't vote for him.

Just like the "religious right" was supposed to recoil in horror and vote en masse for John Kerry after finding out that Darth Cheney had a (gasp!) GAY DAUGHTER!

I am not denying that there is a segment of conservatives who mix a strong dollop of religion with their state. What I am saying is that your (and nearly every other leftists') boogeyman "religious right" doesn't exist.

Sorry Mr.Cook, the title of dick has been taken. Mark Halpern fittingly bestowed that on the Owe-Bama (pronounced owe bama) on MSNBC earlier. He was suspended for the comment. I am sure our hostess has less strict standards for the use of pejoratives.

Explain your comment regarding yours truly. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

11/18/11 10:23 AMScott did we not have a conversation last week in which we basically agreed that the influence of the religious right in the conservative ideology, was not a good thing and that you were relieved it was waning. Am I mixing you up with a different Scott with a motorcycle avatar?

I have long thought this. Just look at what they did to the Boy Scouts thought taking control of the United Way. And look at what they have done by getting control of, or getting control of the people who control, entertainment media. Within 10 years the gays have imposed their mores on the straight community. Unfortunately, the consequences of gay sex and straight sex are different since biological children can result from straight sex. I think that the biggest casualty of the gay agenda is a the family. Casual sexual relationships that result in the birth of a child usually do not lead to strong family enviromnent for the child, just more at risk kids.

@dark Eden"Do leftists have any sort of human decency remaining or is it anything goes to get the evil republicans."

I think that ship sailed long ago.

I think that Jesus would be at OWS. (Until they kicked him out fopr harshing the mellow). He would preach the need to love the homeless and to stop the violence and to share their iPhones and iPads with the less fortunate. He always did hang around sinners.

Newt probably remembers when Act Up used to go into Catholic Churces during Mass and desecrate the host. Other than that, can anyone really deny that there is a secular fascism today to match the secular fascism of the past?

Scott M, I suggest that people who naively believe or assert that all that is necessary to "be a Christian" is to "believe" in Him (that is, simply to accept that he is divine) are taking a too literal (and simplistic meaning). A person who rapes and murders but "believes" Christ is the Son of God is NOT a Christian.

"Believing" in Christ means to be "Christ-like," to live and act as he did, to reflect and express his teachings through one's own behavior, to--as Christ did--tend to the poor, the afflicted, the oppressed, and the "least" of us.

Farid Ahntab, 24, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest for wielding a knife and as he tried to burn a food vendor. Robert Holland, Jr., 31, was charged with threatening someone with a knife and resisting arrest. Angele Chaidez, 21, has been charged with lewd conduct for allegedly masturbating on the steps of City Hall last week and exposing himself in public. Zachary Isaac, 21, was charged with battery for allegedly punching a woman in the face in her tent. Finally, Michael Howard Thomson, 51, was charged with two counts of battery and one count of resisting arrest. He tried to take a two-year-old from its parent and is accused of punching a mediator. Afterwards, he fought the officers who arrested him.

Who says belief in Christ's divinity is necessary to being a Christian?The Council of Nicaea, 325 AD. If you can't agree to the Nicene Creed, which says (in part)"I believe in one God,the Father almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ,the Only Begotten Son of God,born of the Father before all ages.God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;through him all things were made," then you really aren't a Christian. (emphasis added)

Removing the divinity of Christ makes him just some liberal Rabbi with no authority. That version Jesus could not forgive sins, suffer on the cross for our redemption, or rise from the dead to bring us eternal life. Being charitable to the poor, as others have pointed out, is not unique to Christianity. The belief in the Divinity of Christ is.

Scott M, I suggest that people who naively believe or assert that all that is necessary to "be a Christian" is to "believe" in Him (that is, simply to accept that he is divine) are taking a too literal (and simplistic meaning).

You're going to have to point out where I said anything of the sort. Someone doesn't have to go any further than use Roman records to confirm Jesus was a real person to "believe" in him.

As to the religious aspect, I understand that you think you know what you're talking about, but you need to do some reading. Maybe find a pastor or priest to talk to about the concept of grace. I would suggest a Lutheran, but I'm biased.

Well, their silliness is entertaining, their criminality is concerning, their lack of hygiene is a little frightening, and the chasm between their mindless chanting and stomping on the one hand, and the Tea Party's overall decorum on the other is instructive.

This comes just as Tonye Iketubosin, 26, was arrested late Tuesday for allegedly sexually assaulting two women, both inside tents in New York City's Zuccotti Park.

The first alleged attack occurred Oct. 24 after Iketubosin helped a 17-year-old girl to set up her tent. After he refused to leave, he allegedly groped the girl.

The second alleged assault occurred Oct. 29 after an 18-year-old woman from Massachusetts agreed to let Iketubosin sleep in her tent. She said she awoke to find him pulling off her pants and that he proceeded to rape her.

I can't speak for the Man Himself, but I am doubtful that he would have embraced OWS (hey look Anne, I've gone completely off the reservation and jumped into real religiosity in this thread...crap).

What most people forget is that Christ's big point was two fold. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The first thing to be derived from that statement is that people should be treated equally regardless of station. The OWS started out with something akin to this with their anger at being treated unfairly, but almost immediately set about on a path directly contradictory to this. They classified a group, the 1%, a people not inherently evil, as the other. They demand repatriation from that other having nothing to do with whether any individual of that group actually sinned against them. They blame the other for their own personal ills. They are not welcoming, not caring, not willing to forgive and teach to work together to achieve something even among those who have done nothing wrong except earn a lot of money. They are jealous that they do not have what that other has.

The second part is that they demand redistribution from this group. Forced distributionism, forced equality ignores the basic tenet of Catholicism and that is free will. Each person must decide of his own accord to give of himself, being forced to do something removes free will. It removes the goodness of the act. Catholicism is based on the idea that one turns towards God without coercion. Free will is this hugely important thing that is totally abolished by forced redistributionism.

Now, that's not to say someone shouldn't pay taxes for the common good...i.e. "render unto Caesar." It's just that a society that seeks an equality of result rather than an equality of opportunity, one that forces everyone to be the same, does away with a lot of the personal choices that turn a person to or away from God. And then there's the whole subsidiarity problem which argues that local action is better than top down heavily centralized action for relieving the ills of society.

"... Good grief, he became a true believer and joined the Catholic church after cheating on two wives. He must be worried about the religious right rejecting him because of his history of being an adulterer..."

Yes Allie. Becoming a Catholic is the best way to pander to the religious right.

No go tell Dallas PD, they are part of this right wing smear campaign you abject imbecile..

As I suspected, your story is about a OWS protester getting assaulted. And naturally, you smear OWS for it. The story says nothing about the assualter being part of OWS. You're so desperate to smear OWS that you will blame any urban crime on them, even a criminal that travels from Michigan to Occupy Philly and commits a crime. What a douchebag.

"... Who says belief in Christ's divinity is necessary to being a Christian? Being "Christian" merely means to be like Christ...to tend to the poor and hungry and oppressed and afflicted and "the least" among us...."

Um no, not even close. Try again but this time with a bit more intellectual curiosity on the subject you're attempting to educate us on.

"Who says belief in Christ's divinity is necessary to being a Christian? Being "Christian" merely means to be like Christ...to tend to the poor and hungry and oppressed and afflicted and "the least" among us."

Robert--did you make this up yourself or did someone else give you thes misinformation?

I think that fact that the authors of this hit piece were unwilling to take ownership of the contents by putting their own names to it says a lot about its credibility. Or should we assume that if a piece is credited to “TNR Staff” that anyone who is employed as a writer and/or editor for The New Republic at the time of its publication had a hand in it and is culpable for it?

I didn't deny it you sick little fucker. The fact is you don't even care about rapes, you only care about smearing your political opponents with it. If you didn't think you could smear someone with those articles you wouldn't have even bothered reading them. Using rape as your weapon shows what sad demented little mind you have.

I can't accept where you get your facts from. The standards for accuracy in right wing circles, as we all know, are virtually nil.

That sure sounded like you were arguing the accuracy of the accusation of rapes occurring inside the Occupier's encampments. In any case, they didn't need others to smear them, as they've done an excellent job of painting themselves as nearly incoherent idiots. There may have been a goal at first, but it became rapidly diffuse by the very form of organization they sought.

The short story is, they wanted what they wanted, a protest, and they wanted it now without thinking the logistics and realities of prolonged urban camping through very well.

The end result is that they didn't affect much and have created a bit of an albatross for people like "God Bless Them" Pelosi. She won't bother defending them anymore, however, as her own blossoming troubles are just over the horizon.

You're a decent guy, GM, but to see you constantly defend these clowns after watching your comments about the tea party last year makes one uncomfortable.

I notice that Robert Cook ignores that Gingrich's comments are about the views of "historic Christianity", so he's free to substitute his own (meaningless, IMHO) definition. I hope he's not seriously thinking that his definition is, in any sense, how it has been historically defined.

The city noted some of offenses that have occurred in relation to the demonstrators included: the arrests of almost two dozen demonstrators for blocking the entrance to a bank, arrest of a participant charged with failing to register as a sex offender and sexual assault of a child after being accused of having sex with a 14-year-old runaway at the camp, arrests for assault and public intoxication and a 9-month-old child taken into protective custody after the parents were living the campsite with the child.

And yet the number of sexual assualts, rapes, and injuries to police at Tea Party rallies remains at zero.

The left in general are bullies. I think they think they speak for the majority. But the Bolsheviks also claimed to speak for the majority. They speak at most for ten percent. The rest of us get our directives not so much from the Comintern but from traditional religious faith. Which, of course, is better. I'm not sure which group on the far left is the most bullying, but they're all bullies.

"... Good grief, he became a true believer and joined the Catholic church after cheating on two wives. He must be worried about the religious right rejecting him because of his history of being an adulterer..."

Yes Allie. Becoming a Catholic is the best way to pander to the religious right.

/facepalm

11/18/11 11:33 AMNo, Hoosier, joining the Catholic church doesn't fall under pandering to the religious right, most of them describe Catholics as idolators. He pandered to the religious right by painting gay people as scary fascists, who want to take away your rights somehow. Same thing he was trying to do when he lumped secularists in there, scary godless people are coming to take away your freedom to worship,oooooo, scary.

"if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school"

That's absolutely correct - the only quibble I have is the loaded term "extremists".

I'm not even sure why this is supposed to be a "terrible thing" to say - all the Humanist organizations are proud and open in their desire to "impose" the "acceptance of ... values that are antithetical ... [to] what you're taught in Sunday school".

Hell, I'm a lifelong atheist, and I'm not seeing the problem here; the two worldviews (broadly speaking) are in direct conflict, and nothing is gained by pretending they aren't.

Freder: Do you seriously hold that someone who sins must therefore not know what Christian values are?

Because that's the only way I can interpret your statement, which seems to say that someone who commits adultery repeatedly must just Not Understand That It's Wrong.

Rather than, well, be bad at controlling sinful impulses, say.

Which is kind of an odd set of statements to make, from a Christian point of view, isn't it?

I'm not a blog sheriff, so take it for what it's worth, but why bother letting them get under your skin enough type out insults? Let your logic and arguments do the work and ask them to refute specific points. The more vile they are, the less we'll see of them because they generally cannot.

"He pandered to the religious right by painting gay people as scary fascists. . ."

And again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about when you speak of the "religious right." You're indulging in the same simple-minded sophistry as Lurch and Silky Pony, both of whom made deliberate efforts during public debates to let people know that Dick Cheney's daughter was gay.

Lots of people are gay. What made Miss Cheney so unique? Presumably, once those bigoted, bible-thumping, bitter-clining "religious right" were made aware of this shameful fact, the left snickered, surely they couldn't vote for a ticket that had such an abominable sinner's father for VP. They were wrong, and so are you.

But if you honestly are so naive as to think that, as Mark Shea puts it, the "scary fascists" mindset of "Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve!" isn't out there - well, Arthur gave you the example of Brett Ratner. You might also look up the story of Jerry Buell, a former Florida "Teacher of the Year" who was suspended for an anti-gay marriage post on his Facebook page.

I don't care how Christianity has historically been defined. I'm talking about what Christianity is.

As for Gingrich, the dishonesty in his remarks has to do with the too-common crybaby whining of reactionaries that the demand by historically oppressed minority groups that they be granted the same freedoms and rights as the majority somehow means the minority are imposing on the majority.

As to the guy who quoted the Nicene Creed, believe me, I've recited the Nicene Creed hundreds of times in my life, having been raised in the Episcopal Church.

We had a priest for some years who, though he did not speak about this explicitly to the congregation during services, was known to disbelieve in the divinity of Christ. There are many theologians today and in the past who deny Christ's divinity. (Not that a theologian is necessarily a Christian, of course.) "Christianity" is a way of living, a philosophy of life, and need not be coupled with a belief in supernatural realms or entities.

If read metaphorically--as I think it must be--the New Testament's depiction of Christ does not require that he have been divine. As his parables were metaphorical, we may (and should) read tales of the miracles he worked as also being metaphorical.

Simply and sufficiently put, to be "Christian" is to live as Christ did...which so few do, and is why so few professed Christians are actually Christian, whatever even they may believe about themselves.

Do you seriously hold that someone who sins must therefore not know what Christian values are?

Frankly, I do not accept the proposition that engaging in homosexual sex, in and of itself, is a sin. Many mainline Christian denominations no longer believe that homosexual sex is a sin and gladly ordain practicing homosexuals.

You may disagree with my (and my church's) interpretation of the Bible, but I don't really care if you think my interpretation is wrong or not. Newt cannot speak for all Christians any more than the Pope can (although I am much more likely to respect the Pope on questions of theology, even though I am not Catholic, than Gingrich).

I should add, in re: Newt, that we are not a theocracy--we are not a Christian nation, even if we are nation of many Christians--and thus our public policies are not in the least required to adhere to anybody's ideas of what is acceptable according to what is taught in Sunday School.

Robert Cook Christianity is not a way of living it's not even a philosophy, it is a religion upon which philosophical arguments have been anchored. Christians fall into one of two major categories. Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodoxy, which includes Catholicism and some forms of Anglicanism, holds a belief that Christ was divine, a belief in the trinity, pretty much everything in the Nicene Creed plus a belief as tradition being vital to the current life of the church and a divine inspiration for the Bible.

Protestantism does not care much for tradition, argues about the nature of the trinity, but on the whole accepts the divinity of Christ, and the divine inspiration of the Bible.

The idea of God and His Son is central to both incarnations of the religion no matter what else they argue about.

Once you strip away the divinity of Christ you have a secular philosophy that has nothing to do with Christendom. You have secular humanism actually. It's a wonderful philosophy, but it isn't Christian. Christ exists as nothing more than a philosopher then, and a second rate one at that since He never explains his philosophy in sound argument, rather he just engages in acts of kindness and asks you do the same. Again, nothing wrong with this view, but it isn't Christian.

As for your priest if the he did not believe in the divinity of Christ he shouldn't have been an Episcopal priest. This is something that has happened a lot recently, an a la carte choosing of what you actually believe in your religion. There are areas where you can disagree with a church's teachings, but seriously, denying the divinity of Christ is denying your religion, there's no way around that and the guy should not have been preaching.

Another flaw in your analysis is that being Christian is to live as Christ did. No it's not, I know of more than a few incredibly caring agnostics who do more good than practicing Catholics. I'm patently certain they wouldn't like to be labelled 'Christian.' I know of some Jews and Muslims who attempt to treat all others with kindness whenever they can, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like the new label much either.

"As his parables were metaphorical, we may (and should) read tales of the miracles he worked as also being metaphorical."

Including the Resurrection? If so, then to paraprhase C.S. Lewis, you don't believe in Christ. You believe in an inspiring teacher, a teller of thought-provoking tales, but not the Son of God. Lews noted that any man who spoke as Christ did was either a madman or exactly who He claimed to be. There is no other option.

Unless you take the Jesus Seminar route and insist all the mentions of Christ as Son of God were later interpolations by the evil followers of Paul.

And honestly, Robert, if your priest didn't believe in Christ, what was he doing being a priest? He might as well have been a priest of Satan or a Druid for all that.

Freder - "an administration that was patently anti-gay." Thank you. You've demonstrated you are too foolish to engage in debate.

"Another flaw in your analysis is that being Christian is to live as Christ did. No it's not, I know of more than a few incredibly caring agnostics who do more good than practicing Catholics. I'm patently certain they wouldn't like to be labelled 'Christian.' I know of some Jews and Muslims who attempt to treat all others with kindness whenever they can, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like the new label much either."

In case you hadn't noticed, all the great world religions--and many secular schools of thought--share common ideas about the right and moral way to live. To call a way of living "Christian" is branding...a way to identify one's own background and perspective or impetus for action.

As I said, many who claim to be "Christian" are not...even if they believe they are.

As to the guy who quoted the Nicene Creed, believe me, I've recited the Nicene Creed hundreds of times in my life, having been raised in the Episcopal Church.I didn't say "recite," I said "agree with." Plenty of people recite things all the time without actually believing in them, as evidently you have. "Creed" comes from the Latin credo which means "I believe." It is meant to be a concrete statement of faith. If you don't believe in the statements in the creed, then you should refrain from reciting it. You, in effect, are proclaiming yourself a liar.

We had a priest for some years who, though he did not speak about this explicitly to the congregation during services, was known to disbelieve in the divinity of Christ. There are many theologians today and in the past who deny Christ's divinity. (Not that a theologian is necessarily a Christian, of course.) "Christianity" is a way of living, a philosophy of life, and need not be coupled with a belief in supernatural realms or entities.This may be the case, but it not Christianity. Of course there are people who have denied the divinity of Christ, that was one of the prime reasons for holding the Council of Nicaea, to combat the Arian Heresy. And what is the point, if you disbelieve in the supernatural, of all the miracles in the Gospels? Why all the talk of forgiveness of sins, of the resurrection of the dead on the last day, of judgment? Without the divinity of Christ, and for that matter, the existence of God, Heaven, Hell, sin, and judgment, it's all fiddlesticks.Plenty of atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Animists, and whatever-elses, manage to be nice and follow the Golden Rule without recourse to this Christian-lite philosophy. Being kind and charitable is a good thing, but it is not the be-all and end-all of Christianity.

Well then Robert all I can say is that you're confused. You say earlier that we are not a Christian nation, yet you brand yourself a Christian as a way of describing your background rather than a current belief system...so which is it? The government we live in is founded on the Judeo-Christian Tradtion, which hugely influenced Western thought. We have an innate respect for law (Jewish), a system based on the equality all before the law, i.e. no favoritism and free from coercion, actually quite free to act(Christian), so long as laws (murder, theft) aren't broken.

Were we Viking traditioned then murder wouldn't be illegal, it would just come with a blood price. Theft would be encouraged. Under Hindu tradition, all wouldn't be equal before the law, under Chinese tradition the freedom to act is subsumed to the responsibilities in the family and to a lesser extent the empire. All this seems to brand us as a Christian nation according to your own terms.

Unless you want to deny what you just said and realize that there is a philosophy that encapsulates your belief system and even holds Christ in high regard but doesn't think of Him as anything more than a really good guy. It's called secular humanism.

Words have objective meanings. Those meanings change over time, it is true, but right now Christian means something quite different than what you take it to mean. You are no more a Christian than I am an eggplant because I've cloaked myself in purple and am wearing a green hat even if I shout it vociferously from the mountaintops for days on end.

Doc Holliday's Bastard: with regard to your long screed about religion v. secular philosophy, etc., you're just engaging in semantics as far as I'm concerned.

"Once you strip away the divinity of Christ you have a secular philosophy that has nothing to do with Christendom. You have secular humanism actually. It's a wonderful philosophy, but it isn't Christian."

How is it not "Christian" if Christ is the actor or teacher?

Christ exists as nothing more than a philosopher then, and a second rate one at that since He never explains his philosophy in sound argument, rather he just engages in acts of kindness and asks you do the same."

Isn't that enough? Why must there be an articulated argument for living the good life? Isn't the lived example the best argument?

"Again, nothing wrong with this view, but it isn't Christian."

If Christ did it or said it, doesn't that make it "Christian"? I think the distinction is that it isn't only "Christian."

Well, Will and Doc Holliday have written much better about this topic than I can, so I'm bowing out for the weekend.

But basically, Robert, since you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, then all I see is a simple paganism - "an it harm none, do as thou wilt." You may as well worship Jove or Isis or Garage Mahal, if the central tenet of Christianity - that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who was crucified, died and rose again - is simply a metaphor to you.

"If read metaphorically - as I think it must be - the New Testament's depiction of Christ need not require that he be divine."

Which brings us to the question often asked of those who hold this position (and I ask you this, for once, in all sincerity, without snark): since the majority of the Synoptic Gospels were written within the lifetime of people who had known (and in many cases, died for) Christ, why would anyone have faith in or die for a Jewish Houdini?

If I have the chance, I'll poke in later for a look at what you have to say.

It's hilarious to me that people still bicker over old religious books.

Those silly old things have no relationship to what our secular government is supposed to do, and attempts to appeal to such silly religious protectionist instincts by politicians is just another manifestation of the irresistible urge to enslave people to ever-increasing governmental power.

This is why I could never vote for this gasbag, and the continuing appeal of nonsense such as this to a sizable portion of Republican voters makes the possibility of a second term for Barack Obama distinctly, and disastrously, likely.

Blogger Robert Cook said..."No, I don't [brand myself a Christian]. I said I was raised in the Episcopal Church, but I no longer identify as Christian, even though I value very highly many of the Christian principles."

Your principles cannot be sustained long after the belief that Jesus is God ends. Eventually the logic of "why live up to this when it's hard, if it's just a man's opinion?" wins out. Episcopalians and other old-line Protestant communions are dying out due to the force of prior commitments to reject (they would say "recontextualize") certain premises of the Nicene Creed. You end up with everyone inventing his own brand of therapeutic deism and calling it Christianity. Evangelicals are doing it too, only slower and they don't see it.

That's the essence of the Nicene credal requirement that Jesus is God and not a mere philosopher or even a human hero appointed by God: either it's true, or to hell with the whole thing.

The Catholic Church has always held that Jesus gave the Church the mission not only to teach the faith as the Apostles received it, but also to teach "as one with authority and not as the scribes" under St. Peter's guidance, correcting believers about what is and is not included in that faith. That role irritates believers when it rules certain facially appealing beliefs or practices incompatible with Christianity, but it also gives believers peace of mind in knowing that the faith is a fixed star to sail by.

Sure, I suppose that in a country of 315 million people there are a few people who are secular, gay, fascist, and prepared to use violence to force their will on the rest of us. And I'm sure that if you gathered all of them in one place you would have almost enough players for a game of football. :)

But inasmuch as Gingrich was trying to imply that there was politically significant group of violent secular gay fascists in America, he's guilty of the same sort of politics-of-hate that our illustrious President is when he blames every wrong in America on "the rich".

Sure, I suppose that in a country of 315 million people there are a few people who are secular, gay, fascist, and prepared to use violence to force their will on the rest of us. And I'm sure that if you gathered all of them in one place you would have almost enough players for a game of football. :)

Or the world-wide NewAge movement. Or the world-wide OWS movement. Or the world-wide,...

Inasmuch as Gingrich was trying to imply that there was politically significant group of violent secular gay fascists in America, he's guilty of the same sort of politics-of-hate that our illustrious President is when he blames every wrong in America on "the rich".

No he's not, though it is the same - both groups ARE dangerous. I'm sure I don't have to list Christianity's "sins" but it's now politically correct to overlook things like The Stonewall riots or (when Prop 8 was huge in California) there were riots in San Francisco and L.A., and a bunch of gays held a little old lady hostage in her Los Angeles restaurant until she "confessed" to giving money to Mormons that opposed the bill.

Saying criticism of those living a life of delusion - and forcing it on the rest of us - is the "politics of hate" is to muddy the issue beyond recognition.

While I prefer religious folk to the "spiritual" types - by a long shot - I'd still feel better if Western society abandoned believing in nonsense.

The standards for accuracy in right wing circles, as we all know, are virtually nil.

Since the unit known as Garage has not been provided with any fact-checking modules, failure to process anything that appears to have come from from a "right wing" source conveniently reduces the demands on its meager computational power.

Newt writes book reviews at Amazon.com. I'm always impressed by their clarity and rigor. Even before I left the left, I was surprised a politician of any kind could think like he does. It would be hilarious to watch him eviscerate Obama in the debates. Not sure it would translate into electoral success. People have all these bigotries: his three marriages are probably worse to many than Cain's harassment charges. Of course, Clinton's rape charge doesn't matter. He's a Democrat. Give Juanita Broaddrick two hours on Hannity again?

"...since the majority of the Synoptic Gospels were written within the lifetime of people who had known (and in many cases, died for) Christ, why would anyone have faith in or die for a Jewish Houdini?"

Why disparage Jesus as a Jewish Houdini? Why could he not simply have have been a person who spoke to the concerns of his people in their time? In every time we have we have had charismatic and compelling spokesmen for social groups that grew from small kernels to large movements, among them such disparate figures as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, John Brown, to such malevolent figures as Adolf Hitler or Mao Tse Tung, and countless lesser figures who will never become known outside their small followings. It's actually probably rather easy to set up shop as an agitator for a particular point of view or philosophy, whether it be political or religious in nature, and if one is commanding enough, one will inevitably draw a cohort of followers. They will invest their leader/mentor/guru with outsized qualities of wisdom or power rare or unknown among men, even to the point where they will sacrifice all they have for their guru: their lives, money, friends, families, ties to jobs or communities, and so on.

That Jesus compelled a group of "apostles" does not support the contention he was divine, only that he was in some way a compelling force and locus for the hopes and fears those who followed him. Any supposed "divinity" ascribed to Jesus could very well have been after the fact spin, intended to burnish the legitimacy of the lessons he left and of the growing population of "Christians," those who professed to follow his teachings. Heck, look at the ease with which a drab cipher like Obama aroused rapturous idolatry from so many Americans, so hungry were they for some sort of change from the wretched status quo that preceded him. This does not validate any special qualities on the part of Obama, but demonstrates the hunger among so many for someone who would sweep away the persons and effects that had preceded him.

Robert, I don't agree with your answer, but I do appreciate the clarity with which you've spelled it out. And the comparison with Obama is certainly an interesting one, but I still stand by my point that (the cult of, say, Stalin notwithstanding), given the choice of renouncing belief in Christ or being killed, if one believes / knows Christ to have been only a man - albeit an inspirational one - I don't think one would eagerly embrace martyrdom for "just a man."

In any event, I have to get back to weekend work. Should you happen to read this comment, let me say that, while I disagree with almost all of your political (and now, religious) views, I enjoyed the give-and-take here and appreciate your responses.